Do you believe we're passed the point of no return on environmental damage?

Question

And if so will replacing a few light bulbs with compact florescent fix the problem?

Companies and people worldwide will still exploit resources.

According to UN:

- The world’s population has grown by 34% to 6.7 billion in 20 years

- Annual income per head has grown by 40% to US$8,162

- 73,000km2 of forest is lost across the world each year – 3.5 times the size of Wales

- 75,000 people a year are killed by natural disasters

- Three million die of water-related diseases

- Ten million children under 10 die

- Farmers produce 39% more from their land than in the 1980s

- 60 per cent of the world’s major rivers have been dammed or diverted

- Populations of freshwater fish have declined by 50 per cent in 20 years

- More than half of all cities exceed WHO pollution guidelines

Do you believe this?

Answer 1

We are not past the point of no return, but gotta take the situation seriously. Several years ago, Lake Erie was declared dead. No longer the case.

Answer 2

I agree with what Eli L said above, and I think that we can get to the point of no return easily. The world's population is now higher than 6.7 billion, and there are even more significant issues and problems hitting us right now than even listed there from the UN. Does anybody think it's normal for cancer to be so prevalent? Yes, science has advanced greatly to detect and treat cancer, but WHY is it so common now?

I truly believe that the planet is much like a living organism. Okay, it sounds weird, but hear me out. (Not in a religious way, because I believe in God, but much like, for example, the human body.) We can take so much in cuts, bruises, and broken bones even, and eventually we heal. Even bodies badly burned or damaged in car accidents do eventually heal. However, at some point, beaten down and broken enough, we will simply die. Knowing there's damage is the first step. Doing everything we can to help it heal is better than nothing at all! (Even if there's "infection" spreading too...)
Very few of us hold the resources or power to do anything super significant to help curb this environmental issue, but little by little, these seemingly insignificant acts are adding up and making a difference. Five years ago, it was ludicrous where I live to spend extra money on "natural" products, and now, every grocery store out here has either a natural section in their store or natural products mixed in with their regular items. Small steps are all that can really happen, but those steps are mimicked by the rest of the world, and eventually the bad is phased out, the "natural" becomes norm, and hopefully, my grandchildren can drink tap water.

Answer 3

No, hope is not lost. No, efficient use of kettles and lightbulbs will not save the world. If everyone in the Western World boiled only as little water as necessary and used efficient lightbulbs, carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by a whopping 1%.

The main problem is that governments do not recognise the magnitude of the climate change problem. It is treated as a minor issue. It is not even a major issue; it is an international emergency. It is at least as great a threat as Hitler's expansion was in the 1930s. Let's hope we can find a Churchill soon.

For the only realistic solution is for governments to put in place wartime style rationing policies, but this time, it is greenhouse gas emissions that must be rationed.

Answer 4

The beautiful thing about the earth is that it will heal itself with time. The question is whether or not we will be around to see it.

Lightbulbs won't fix it, hybrids won't fix it.

What we really need is more widespread education about sustainability. Knowledge when passed on at least has a chance of bringing about change.

What we are witnessing is the result of a few centuries of profit before all other concerns, selfish consumerism, and reckless land develpment, all coupled with bad planning and just plain old ignorance about the consequences of our lifestyles.

Everything has to change. Not just lightbulbs, not just cars. Things like our agriculture (which is entirely dependent on cheap oil) our land use policies (which seem to be driven by a hurry up and deforest the country to build big suburban houses no one can afford) and our mentality about what constitutes a "need" all have to change first.

Think about this...The real crisis looming over our heads isn't going to be transportation, or air quality, or availability of electricity, it's going to be access to fresh water.

Answer 5

I don't think so we're passed the point of no return. There are many programmes run by the international organiztions like WWF, Toyota, Canon, Honda, etc., which are taking serious measurements to revive the lost environment by afforestation programmes, reduced use of non-renewable fuels, rehabilitation of endangered species of animal and plants, production and innovation of new techniques and medicines for fighting incurable diseases by making use of the advanced technology!
Therefore, it can't be said that we are passed the point of no return on environmental damage!

Answer 6

I believe we're in for a major smack down from Mother Nature but I believe we can lessen the blow by aggressively pursuing a
green agenda, but when you have places like China and India and others that are so massively overpopulated and have virtually no enforceable environmental regulations there's only so much that can be done.

Answer 7

Nope we have not reached the point of no return as yet, but we are getting there, seeing that most of us are working hard at it. :o)
Soon what we have done to our beloved planet will be irreversible.
God Forbid, its getting scary now.
We should be afraid, we should be very very afraid !
I am hoping and praying for a miracle to happen, and keeping my fingers and toes crossed for good measure.

Take Care.
God bless us and please hurry.


Edit :-
Forget the statistics look around you. What do you see ? Devastation :o(
Statistics are good enough for politicians and bureaucrats to sit around and ponder and do nothing about, totally useless.
Lets do something about it, if you believe in the power of ONE. Instead of sitting around and talk about it.
GET UP AND GO MY FRIEND !

Answer 8

I am unsure what you are really trying to say here, because your 'facts' contradict your question.

Your quotes fall into two distinct camps, the first being an environmental problem; overpopulation, overconsumption, deforestation, freshwater fish decline, intensive agriculture.

The second set are more about mankind itself; deaths.
I recognize that environmental problems may have increased these deaths by 'natural disasters'. You do not give comparative figures from previous years but I suggest, that whilst increases in human deaths are terrible from a humane perspective, they are, from an environmental perspective positive as they are reducing the population, so they are reducing the demands on finite resources. This is a moral dilemma for mankind, but not so from an environmental perspective. From this view it is positive as it will mean less negative impact, particularly if those deaths are in first world countries.

The point of no return on environmental damage? No, when we discuss the damage we are doing to the environment we are not really talking about 'the damaged done to the environment', we are talking about, mankind's existence within that environment. So, taking this argument to it's extreme we are an integral part of the ecosystem, but the ecosystem will adjust and heal without us, mankind. It would be changed as it has been by other species' extinctions but would continue.

I argue that this is not what concerns us at all. What concerns mankind when discussing the environment is his own existence, his own comfortable existence within that environment. NO, again we have not passed the point of no return. If we had we would be seeing very different things eg death through mass starvation or from lack of potable water throughout the world, not just in developing countries.

So whilst the damage we have done and continue to do on the environment should be a great concern to us all, we still have time to take action to minimize or reverse some of that damage.

Next how? No, just changing a few lightbulbs won't help but if everybody took positive actions and reduced their emissions it would be very significant. This will not be a magic bullet, there will be no single solutions but a web of solutions including Pemaculture, improved technology, new ways in which to live more sustainably, a global biocentric perspective away from consumerism, education, etc etc etc.

So What is Permaculture?:
Permaculture is to live ethically and sustainably so we have to understand eco systems and how the natural world works. The key is to understand that we are a single system; not separate. Whatever we do locally affects other people and the environment globally. Local solutions provide the best answers, we have different climates, soils, flora and fauna. Different needs, wants, tradition and cultures. But by acting locally we must keep an eye on the Horizon by limiting the damage on the environment and people globally. For example Global Warming affects us all.

Permaculture seeks to design ways of meeting man's needs by creating permanent high-yielding agricultural ecosystems. It is a solution aimed at how people can live on the smallest amount of land possible. The natural landscape (the rest, the wilderness is then not used by man) it is then left alone to heal and so it functions holistically.

Local responsibility ensures that people become as auto sufficient as possible both individually and as trading communities. Man is responsible for meeting his own needs for fuel, food and dealing with his own outputs and wastes.

Timber is grown on site in mixed native woodlands. This enriches the local ecosystem but its basis is the opposition of meeting man's needs by deforestation of the remaining natural and ancient forests/woodlands. Permaculture is a system of observation and least possible intervention both in terms of the home and the wilderness. It's leading principle is that eco-systems will naturally re-balance if left alone.

Hence the desire to create high yielding 'homesteads' to meet man's needs as efficiently as possible. By creating our own mini high yielding systems for our own use we use the least amount of everything possible. The Ethics of Permaculture are: Earth Care this is simply working with nature not against it. Limiting consumption and self limiting family size so there is less demand on natural systems/finite resources/finite land.

People Care
By being as self reliant as possible we do not exploit others, nor the land. Permaculture seeks to provide Permanent Agriculture. For example trees that are planted today on the 'homestead' will be inheritance for your grandchildrens' generation. Mixed woodlands of native trees on the homestead are managed so they provide food and fuel but the key principle is PERMANENT culture. You are investing in the future but having your needs met as ethically as possible whilst providing a legacy for future generations.

Fair Shares
One earth it is socially just to share with everyone, all other living things and with future generations. By limiting our consumption of everything including family size it supports the needs of everyone throughout the world to have access to clean water, clean air, food, shelter, fair and living wage, community etc.

Answer 9

The scientific answer is no, sociologicaly speaking though.....

I'm backing plan 'B'; Permaculture.